Sunday, November 10, 2013

The Arizona Capitol Times had another hard-hitting article on the prosecution of Tom Horne, the liberal Republican Attorney General who has no chance of winning re-election, according to powerful D.C. consultants who have taken polls. Prosecutor Sheila Polk is not the only one who has found wrongdoing by Horne, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery has also found reason to civilly prosecute Horne. This is why conservatives and Tea Party activists are supporting Mark Brnovich instead. Brnovich has been endorsed by Montgomery as well as Rep. Trent Franks.

Here are some excerpts from the article by Jeremy Duda -

The
crux of Polk’s case is a series of phone calls between Horne and Winn
that occurred while Winn was communicating via email with Brian Murray,
BLA’s political consultant. While Polk and Montgomery have presented
the calls and emails as evidence of coordination, Horne and Winn say
prosecutors can’t prove they were talking about the attorney general’s
race or BLA activities. They say the calls were about Winn assisting
Horne with a real estate deal.

As evidence of
coordination, Polk cited the timing of Winn’s phone calls with Horne and
her emails with BLA’s consultant. In some cases, the calls closely
followed Murray’s emails to Winn about the BLA ad, and
Winn’s responses to her consultant came just after her conversations
with Horne ended. Horne also forwarded Winn an email several days later
in which one of his campaign staffers discussed Horne’s campaign
strategy, and urged her to raise more money from a
national Republican group. And Polk’s case is bolstered by the fact
that Winn worked on Horne’s campaign, and didn’t leave to work on her IE
until a few weeks after the GOP primary....Several
elections attorneys emphasized that Polk will have to meet a relatively
low standard of proof. While prosecutors in criminal cases must
convince juries that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt, civil cases such as Horne and Winn’s are held to a lower
standard called “preponderance of evidence,” meaning that Polk only has
to show that a violation was more likely than not.--In
her order, Polk said the evidence against Horne and Winn is compelling.
She said the phone conversations between them while Winn and Murray
discussed the content of the ad via email shows that they coordinated
their efforts. Winn’s comments to Murray about how “we” wanted certain
changes to the ad show she was consulting with someone else, and Polk
insisted that person must be Horne.

“Winn almost always consulted with Horne prior to instructing Murray,” Polk wrote in her Oct. 17 order....“When
Horne sent strategic information to a supposedly independent campaign,
he intentionally and blatantly broke the barrier that was supposed to
exist between his campaign and BLA. The breach is so clear that
Horne must have recognized it to be improper,” Polk wrote....

Polk
ordered Horne and Winn to repay about $400,000 that the prosecutor
alleges was illegally contributed to BLA, and they could face a fine of
up to $1.2 million if they lose the case.